“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court

1,349

citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das

103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court

721

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court

471

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT

336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court

398

citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

Hetal Pagare, ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Mulund West

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

assessment proceedings in respect of facts that was already examined during the original assessment proceedings amount to a change of opinion. Therefore, the reassessment proceeding conducted is void ab initio. 9. Ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has submitted the necessary details in support of his claim ... high court as in para-13 is as below: "13. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid position that (1) Reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under Section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is no change

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar vs. ITO, Exemption, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

learned CIT(A), ID has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section 148 issued ... vague. (ii) That the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred confirming the order of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in the eye of law, as there is no live nexus between the information and the belief formed by the Assessing

Bhl Forex and Finlease Limited, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-23, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1181/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanbhl Forex & Finlease Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle - 2, 6, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aabcb8886H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Gini Gandhi, Advocate Ms. Anu Bajaj, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). In This Regard, He Submitted That Assessee Has Filed Its Original Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act Which Was Belated Return & Declared The Loss. As Per The Provisions Of The Act, The Losses Declared In The Belated Returns

For Appellant: Ms. Gini Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

years. However, while completing the assessment, he considered the unclaimed carried forward of loss and reduced the voluntary disallowance of expenses for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the behest of audit objection. We observed that when the assessee has chose not to carry forward the 4 returned losses

Vimala Hariharan, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 1(1), Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 276/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

respect of only one residential property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) challenging the very validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings and also challenging the restriction of relief u/s.54F of the Act. The CIT(A) after due consideration of the written submissions, dismissed the appeal ... upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings and also affirming the restriction of relief u/s.54F of the Act made by the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature, which do not require

Aditya Cement, Behror vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1491/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 72(1)

assessee the same should not have been accepted by the A.O. in the first place and otherwise revision proceedings u/s 263 and reassessment proceedings u/s 147 could have been undertaken as provided by Act. The A.O. chose it as a mistake apparent u/s 154 from the record which

Abdul Aziz, Dudu vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Lal Kothi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

calling for evidence in support of the transaction of sale of land was issued on 19.08.2019 [almost five months after initiation of reassessment proceedings] Thereafter, Show cause notice for completing the assessment u/s 144 was issued on 16.11.2019 [three months after issue of notice u/s 142(1)] Effectively, only

Ujwal Tukaram Pawar, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2764/PUN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2764/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

reasons recorded and the additions made by AO. 4. We find that the said additional ground goes to the root cause of the reassessment proceedings and the same deserves to be admitted in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation

Mrs. Nayana D. Atekar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-29(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 147

advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 3. It is noted that co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as consequence of which, the addition made there under stands deleted. This Tribunal while quashing the reassessment proceedings observed and held as under

DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs. Manidhari Jewellers, Bhopal

The appeal are allowed

ITA 533/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 04Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 25Section 250Section 253

undisclosed income of Rs.87.85 Lac. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee is beneficiary in these transactions”. 2.4 That during the course of the reassessment proceedings following opportunities were given which are tabulated below:- Type Date Date Response Date Response Remarks Notice/ Notice/ Compliance of the Response (Full/part

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Sunpoint Trading Limited, Memnagar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 215/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

that the said amount represented unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, which had escaped assessment for F.Y. 2017-18. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said amount was not a fresh loan advanced during the year but was in fact a repayment ... surplus, to be factually incorrect. Consequently, the amount was brought to tax under section 69. It is also not in dispute that during reassessment proceedings, the assessee initially referred to the advance from its own capital reserves, whereas before the CIT(A), it clarified that the amount was a repayment